PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Since the 1st round QB debate is big around here look at this


Mecca
08-26-2008, 07:32 PM
http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/23qb/23qbs.php

So You Want a Quarterback in the 2nd or 3rd Round?
Scott Wright
President, Draft Countdown

You will often hear NFL fans and draftniks say they hope their team waits until the second or third round to draft a quarterback because taking one in the first round is just too risky. There is no denying that selecting a quarterback early in the draft is a dangerous proposition and with the way contracts for top ten picks have been spiraling out of control the financial ramifications just make it all that more daunting. However, with great risk also comes great reward. The first round waters are treacherous when it comes to signal callers but history has shown that waiting to address the game's most crucial position probably isn’t such a good idea either.

Below you will find a list of every quarterback taken in either the second or third round of the NFL Draft for fifteen years, from 1992-2006. I chose not to include the seven signal callers taken in that same range the past two years because it is still too early to make a judgment about most of their careers one way or another.

As you can see there were a total of 31 quarterbacks taken in either the second or third round from 1992-2006. There were some who started quite a few games and had varying degrees of success (i.e. Kordell Stewart, Jake Plummer, Brian Griese) while others have managed to bounce around the league for a long time (i.e. Todd Collins, Charlie Batch, Josh McCown) but overall the group leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, Drew Brees is the only one who developed into a great quarterback for the team that drafted him and he was the 32nd overall pick, which would be a first rounder today. Also, Brees was so disappointing his first few years that the Chargers moved on and used a Top 5 on Philip Rivers before he hit his stride.

That is 1 out of 31, which equates to about a 3% success rate.

Granted the jury is still out on Matt Schaub but his first year in Houston was a disappointment and let’s just say that the odds aren’t in his favor.

Sure for every Peyton Manning or Carson Palmer there are probably three or four Ryan Leaf’s, Tim Couch’s or David Carr’s but wouldn’t you rather at least roll the dice on the 20% chance that you’ll get an elite, franchise signal caller you can build a team around instead of someone who in a best-case scenario might only be Jake Plummer?

Some might say the best course of action is to wait until the mid or late rounds to select a passer and one could cite plenty of examples to support that theory since almost a dozen of the league’s current starting quarterbacks were chosen beyond the third round, or in some cases not even drafted at all. However, only a few of those guys are actually playing for the team that originally drafted or signed them so while it’s true you may be able to find a future starting quarterback late in the draft it will most likely be for someone else. Guys like Tom Brady and Tony Romo are the extremely rare exceptions, certainly not the rule.

Perhaps Kevin Kolb, Trent Edwards, Brian Brohm or Chad Henne will buck the odds and become above average starting quarterbacks in the NFL over the next few years but even if that happens the success rate for signal callers selected in the second or third round is still going to be abysmal. The bottom line is that it’s a crapshoot to take a quarterback in the first round but recent history has shown us that it doesn’t get any easier to find one later on and if you do opt to wait chances are you’ll get what you pay for. Sure you might waste a high draft pick and a ton of money on the next Akili Smith but at least the potential for finding the next Donovan McNabb is there as well. That just isn’t the case in round two or three.

There are no sure things when it comes to the NFL Draft and that is especially true when it comes to first round quarterbacks, at least until the next generation of Manning’s come along. However, you have to be in it to win it and simply avoiding the top quarterback prospects because you’re afraid to make a mistake is no way to run a team either. There will always be a high degree of risk associated with first round signal callers but if you want a stud passer the best course of action is to just take the plunge and hope you wind up with Ben Roethlisberger and not Alex Smith.

Or you could just wait a couple of decades for Archie Manning’s grandkids…

The table is on the site I can't copy and paste that. So if you wanna see all the drafted QB's click on the link.

TrickyNicky
08-26-2008, 07:48 PM
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9203/9206qbchartgt0.jpg

They have some anti-copypasta code on there, but firefox is crafty.

DaneMcCloud
08-26-2008, 07:57 PM
I've listed the stats many times but people don't want to hear it.

Only two second round QB's have ever won the Super Bowl (Brett Favre and Ken Stabler) and only two third round QB's have ever won it (Joe Montana & Jeff Hostetler).

Considering that Montana & Favre are Hall of Famers, they'd both have been first round draft choices. Stabler was solid and Hostetler was just average.

The bottom line: You need first round talent to win a Super Bowl.

Tribal Warfare
08-26-2008, 07:59 PM
The bottom line: You need first round talent to win a Super Bowl.

not if you're Bart Starr

BigVE
08-26-2008, 08:00 PM
I've listed the stats many times but people don't want to hear it.



The bottom line: You need first round talent to win a Super Bowl.

Like Matt Leinart?

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-26-2008, 08:02 PM
I really, really want to play poker against the people who keep advocating 2nd and 3rd round QBs. They obviously have no knowledge of pot odds or implied odds. It'd be a f*cking berry patch.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:03 PM
Like Matt Leinart?

The point of the article is sure there are 1st round busts but the odds of finding your QB there are much greater than the later rounds.

Tribal Warfare
08-26-2008, 08:05 PM
I really, really want to play poker against the people who keep advocating 2nd and 3rd round QBs. They obviously have no knowledge of pot odds or implied odds. It'd be a f*cking berry patch.



No shit, and the sametime some of the NFL greatest were apart of that berry patch. Point is the QB position doesn't have a set rate of "1st round QB's shall be gold" They have to be in the right situation to make a run at it.

BigVE
08-26-2008, 08:06 PM
I don't disagree but to assume that your always better off with a first round QB is crazy. IF we would have taken a QB in rd 1 that year it would have most likely been Leinart...now it's yet to be seen whether he is a bust or not but at least we got Croyle for no more than a 3rd rounder instead of wasting a first. AND, look at NEXT years potential QB's...nobody I would want in round 1.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:08 PM
There's nothing saying Leinart wouldn't be good int he Chiefs offense, the fit of the system, all that. Leinart looks worse since they switched head coaches, he didn't look bad in Denny Green's WCO, in Whisenhunts down field attack he doesn't look good because he doesn't have a great arm...once again fit and talent.

Personally I think insisting on using your system when you come in with a young QB who isn't capable of playing in it, is really stupid. It's being stubborn to the point of having no brain.

Part of the problem with the NFL is alot of the coaches think they are so much smarter than everyone else they do stupid shit that everyone else can see what the issue is. Either that or they refuse to admit they made a mistake on a player.

ChiefsCountry
08-26-2008, 08:11 PM
If the Cards let Leinart go, I wouldnt mind bringing him in here. He was the only QB I wanted over Croyle in that draft.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:14 PM
If the Cards let Leinart go, I wouldnt mind bringing him in here. He was the only QB I wanted over Croyle in that draft.

He basically has to play in a WCO short passing game, his arm isn't good enough to play in a vertical scheme, I think that's what's really hurting him now. With Green he was in a scheme he could play in now he's not and the coach is stubborn and won't modify it.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 08:19 PM
Interesting that he limits this to 2nd and 3rd round picks.

Because if he had to include Bulger, Hasselbeck, Romo, Brady, Warner, Garrard, Anderson, etc, his numbers wouldn't look so great.

Also, he doesn't bother to mention that a R1 bust literally cripples a franchise financially and developmentally for 3-5 years, where if a mid-late guy flames out, there's no risk absorbed at all.

So you have a 20% chance of landing a solid QB (the number is even less for elite), which means you have an 80% chance of your franchise being crippled for half a decade...

Or, you have a 5-10% chance of finding that solid QB in later rounds, with ZERO CHANCE of crippling the franchise if he flames out.

And we wonder why teams are taking QB's later and later nowadays...

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:22 PM
So you'd rather play to be the exception, alright, I wouldn't.

Fish
08-26-2008, 08:23 PM
Some might say the best course of action is to wait until the mid or late rounds to select a passer and one could cite plenty of examples to support that theory since almost a dozen of the league’s current starting quarterbacks were chosen beyond the third round, or in some cases not even drafted at all. However, only a few of those guys are actually playing for the team that originally drafted or signed them so while it’s true you may be able to find a future starting quarterback late in the draft it will most likely be for someone else.

I don't see how this is relevant. If anything it shows the impatience at the QB position. Some great QBs take longer to develop. Just because a QBs first team didn't give him a chance doesn't mean he wasn't talented.

The bottom line is that it’s a crapshoot to take a quarterback in the first round but recent history has shown us that it doesn’t get any easier to find one later on

Well no shit the odds don't get better. What would you expect?

TrickyNicky
08-26-2008, 08:24 PM
Its more like I have very little confidence that Carl Peterson could pick an elite QB if given an overall pick.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:24 PM
I don't see how this is relevant. If anything it shows the impatience at the QB position. Some great QBs take longer to develop. Just because a QBs first team didn't give him a chance doesn't mean he wasn't talented.



Well no shit the odds don't get better. What would you expect?

Some people act like they do, that's the point. You'll always find people saying you don't need to use a 1st round pick on a QB, and he's showing you that isn't the case.

Fish
08-26-2008, 08:26 PM
Interesting that he limits this to 2nd and 3rd round picks.

Because if he had to include Bulger, Hasselbeck, Romo, Brady, Warner, Garrard, Anderson, etc, his numbers wouldn't look so great.

Also, he doesn't bother to mention that a R1 bust literally cripples a franchise financially and developmentally for 3-5 years, where if a mid-late guy flames out, there's no risk absorbed at all.

So you have a 20% chance of landing a solid QB (the number is even less for elite), which means you have an 80% chance of your franchise being crippled for half a decade...

Or, you have a 5-10% chance of finding that solid QB in later rounds, with ZERO CHANCE of crippling the franchise if he flames out.

And we wonder why teams are taking QB's later and later nowadays...

Exactly.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 08:27 PM
So you'd rather play to be the exception, alright, I wouldn't.

What exception?

I guess if it's worth trying to hit that 10% margin and crippling the franchise when you miss, then by all means.

There have been TWO elite QB's, maybe 3-4 solid QB's in the 1st round in the last 10 years. You have better odds playing Powerball.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:28 PM
That's pretty sad that people are actually scared to take a QB.

You know if Dorsey is a bomb that'll cripple the team too? DT is has just as many busts as QB does too...

Why does the most important position on the team scare people? I think I'd rather take one 1st and be like "I got my guy and I feel he's it" than taking one in the 3rd round and going "yea well he might be good I dunno atleast he's cheap"

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:29 PM
What exception?

I guess if it's worth trying to hit that 10% margin and crippling the franchise when you miss, then by all means.

There have been TWO elite QB's, maybe 3-4 solid QB's in the 1st round in the last 10 years. You have better odds playing Powerball.

You can not be SCARED to make a pick, I don't care what position dude is, if you bomb on a top 5 pick it will hurt you.

People seem scared of QB's, is that some kind of effect of our team never having one?

Fish
08-26-2008, 08:29 PM
Some people act like they do, that's the point. You'll always find people saying you don't need to use a 1st round pick on a QB, and he's showing you that isn't the case.

Some people act like the odds get better? How so?

And he provides a pretty weak case as far as I'm concerned. He's basically alluding to "come on.... you might get lucky.." because he's not showing that the odds are all that convincing. And he's completely ignoring the financial side of the argument. Which is more important than ever with rookie contracts ballooning as they have in the last few years.

Deberg_1990
08-26-2008, 08:30 PM
Interesting that he limits this to 2nd and 3rd round picks.

Because if he had to include Bulger, Hasselbeck, Romo, Brady, Warner, Garrard, Anderson, etc, his numbers wouldn't look so great.

Also, he doesn't bother to mention that a R1 bust literally cripples a franchise financially and developmentally for 3-5 years, where if a mid-late guy flames out, there's no risk absorbed at all.

So you have a 20% chance of landing a solid QB (the number is even less for elite), which means you have an 80% chance of your franchise being crippled for half a decade...

Or, you have a 5-10% chance of finding that solid QB in later rounds, with ZERO CHANCE of crippling the franchise if he flames out.

And we wonder why teams are taking QB's later and later nowadays...

Sometimes you just have to say f*ck it and dare to be great no matter the risk.

If you always play it safe with little upside, well....you end up like the Chiefs.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:31 PM
Sometimes you just have to say f*ck it and dare to be great no matter the risk.

If you always play it safe with little upside, well....you end up like the Chiefs.

Exactly, being great requires taking chances.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 08:32 PM
That's pretty sad that people are actually scared to take a QB.

You know if Dorsey is a bomb that'll cripple the team too? DT is has just as many busts as QB does too...

Why does the most important position on the team scare people? I think I'd rather take one 1st and be like "I got my guy and I feel he's it" than taking one in the 3rd round and going "yea well he might be good I dunno atleast he's cheap"

Glenn Dorsey was considered the Peyton Manning of DT's. Not exactly a good comparison.

I'm not scared at all to take a QB in R1, but it's not going to be a run-of-the-mill guy like Ryan or Stafford, just because they're the best guy in a pathetic class of QB's.

Especially when there's only a 10% less chance my late round guy doesn't work out.

Again:

An 80% chance of failure, while crippling the franchise?

Or a 85-90% chance of failure, with ZERO risk?

Look around the league, it;s not like I'm the only one that feels this way...

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:34 PM
You want the Carson Palmer prospect eh.....well hell lets never draft a QB, I'll be satisfied winning our 7 games a year.

I don't like your logic at all it's like saying "unless I get a HOFer I don't want one at all"

JASONSAUTO
08-26-2008, 08:36 PM
you never can tell who's a HOFer until the guy plays

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 08:36 PM
Sometimes you just have to say f*ck it and dare to be great no matter the risk.

If you always play it safe with little upside, well....you end up like the Chiefs.

5-10% less upside is playing it safe?

80% chance of failure with huge risk.

85-90% failure with no risk.


And those numbers are probably even closer, considering 12/32 teams are starting QB's drafted outside the 1st round.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:37 PM
And I think Matt Ryan compares to Matt Hasselbeck who I think you can with a bowl with so I don't think he's "pathetic"

Fish
08-26-2008, 08:37 PM
You want the Carson Palmer prospect eh.....well hell lets never draft a QB, I'll be satisfied winning our 7 games a year.

I don't like your logic at all it's like saying "unless I get a HOFer I don't want one at all"

I would have gladly accepted the Carson Palmer prospect with the #5 last year. But he wasn't there.

I want a first round QB. But not any first round QB.

Deberg_1990
08-26-2008, 08:38 PM
5-10% less upside is playing it safe?

80% chance of failure with huge risk.

85-90% failure with no risk.


And those numbers are probably even closer, considering 12/32 teams are starting QB's drafted outside the 1st round.

Well, hell...any first round pick is a HUGE risk. Lets just forfeit our #1 pick every year. Its just too risky...

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:39 PM
I would have gladly accepted the Carson Palmer prospect with the #5 last year. But he wasn't there.

I want a first round QB. But not any first round QB.

Well like I said you'll be waitin Carson Palmer is a rare prospect, it's one thing to not want to reach on a guy like Flacco but to every year act like the legit top QB is a scrub is a bit much.

You can't sit going "unless this guy is a possible HOFer I don't want him"

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:40 PM
Well, hell...any first round pick is a HUGE risk. Lets just forfeit our #1 pick every year. Its just too risky...

They're to expensive they'll cripple our franchise!

I love the totally scared philosophy, our franchise is in the shitter that's what gets you the top pick, take a ****in chance to be great.

TrickyNicky
08-26-2008, 08:41 PM
I would have taken Ryan at 5. I would have taken Quinn at 23 and ran like I stole something. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way. But, we couldn't wholesale future 1st rounders (like cleveland) because we coveted someone. Not when we have this many holes.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 08:41 PM
And I think Matt Ryan compares to Matt Hasselbeck who I think you can with a bowl with so I don't think he's "pathetic"

ROFL

You thought Kawika Mitchell was going to get a $30M contract, too.

Sorry if I don't genuflect at your alter...


And FTR, I didn't say RYAN was pathetic, I said he was the best in a pathetic CLASS.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:41 PM
You know when you have the 1st pick, there isn't anything to cripple, you're already there, it gets no lower.

Fish
08-26-2008, 08:41 PM
Well like I said you'll be waitin Carson Palmer is a rare prospect, it's one thing to not want to reach on a guy like Flacco but to every year act like the legit top QB is a scrub is a bit much.

You can't sit going "unless this guy is a possible HOFer I don't want him"

I'll wait. I'm patient. More time to fix the rest of the team.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:43 PM
ROFL

You thought Kawika Mitchell was going to get a $30M contract, too.

Sorry if I don't genuflect at your alter...


And FTR, I didn't say RYAN was pathetic, I said he was the best in a pathetic CLASS.

Well hey that's lovely.....you get some right you get some wrong but sitting here devaluing the most important position on the field isn't smart in my view.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 08:43 PM
Well like I said you'll be waitin Carson Palmer is a rare prospect, it's one thing to not want to reach on a guy like Flacco but to every year act like the legit top QB is a scrub is a bit much.

You can't sit going "unless this guy is a possible HOFer I don't want him"

So, Flacco was a reach and Ryan WASN'T?

Why, because Flacco went to Delaware?


The last 3 years, not counting Ryan, they all HAVE been scrubs. And Eli looked like a scrub until this past January.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:43 PM
I'll wait. I'm patient. More time to fix the rest of the team.

Then you build to be the Chiefs of the 90s.....I don't want that.

Deberg_1990
08-26-2008, 08:45 PM
You know when you have the 1st pick, there isn't anything to cripple, you're already there, it gets no lower.

I was thinking the same thing....

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:45 PM
So, Flacco was a reach and Ryan WASN'T?

Why, because Flacco went to Delaware?


The last 3 years, not counting Ryan, they all HAVE been scrubs. And Eli looked like a scrub until this past January.

There's a huge difference in a shotgun division 2 QB with a big arm and a guy in a pro style system in the ACC, with a head coach that was an NFL OC.

That Jay Cutler guy has been pretty solid so far...

RibKing67
08-26-2008, 08:46 PM
Glenn Dorsey was considered the Peyton Manning of DT's. Not exactly a good comparison.

I'm not scared at all to take a QB in R1, but it's not going to be a run-of-the-mill guy like Ryan or Stafford, just because they're the best guy in a pathetic class of QB's.

Especially when there's only a 10% less chance my late round guy doesn't work out.

Again:

An 80% chance of failure, while crippling the franchise?

Or a 85-90% chance of failure, with ZERO risk?

Look around the league, it;s not like I'm the only one that feels this way...


:thumb:

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 08:47 PM
Well hey that's lovely.....you get some right you get some wrong but sitting here devaluing the most important position on the field isn't smart in my view.

And you're overvaluing it. It probably falls somewhere in the middle.

For a guy that claims to be a proponent of the BPA approach, this makes you look a bit hypocritical.

None of these QB's are anywhere near the BPA of the entire class.

Russell wasn't.

Ryan wasn't

And Stafford won't be either...

Fish
08-26-2008, 08:47 PM
Then you build to be the Chiefs of the 90s.....I don't want that.

If there was only one single way to develop a winning QB, then I might agree. That's not the case. This guy's odds make that pretty clear.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:48 PM
I think the only reason Warpath is arguing with me is he's a Croyle guy which I don't get....all I ask is for one person to tell me what he's done to get the benefit of the doubt.

He hasn't won a game, he doesn't have good stats, he's frail....I don't like this belief a guy is good or will be good for no other reason than he plays for the Chiefs, if this guy started on any other team we'd make fun of him, and them for starting him.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:49 PM
And you're overvaluing it. It probably falls somewhere in the middle.

For a guy that claims to be a proponent of the BPA approach, this makes you look a bit hypocritical.

None of these QB's are anywhere near the BPA of the entire class.

Russell wasn't.

Ryan wasn't

And Stafford won't be either...

Russells physical talent would make him a high pick most years...I doubt he'd ever fall below 10.

You just told me I overvalue the most important position on the team, thanks I'll take that.

DaneMcCloud
08-26-2008, 08:50 PM
not if you're Bart Starr

Comparing a player drafted 50 years ago isn't a very valid comparison.

Deberg_1990
08-26-2008, 08:50 PM
And you're overvaluing it. It probably falls somewhere in the middle.

For a guy that claims to be a proponent of the BPA approach, this makes you look a bit hypocritical.

None of these QB's are anywhere near the BPA of the entire class.

Russell wasn't.

Ryan wasn't

And Stafford won't be either...


So you want to sit around and wait every 15 years or so until a Manning or Elway comes along?? Got it.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 08:50 PM
You know when you have the 1st pick, there isn't anything to cripple, you're already there, it gets no lower.

And when you take a QB 15-20 slots higher than you should, based on need alone, it guarantees you'll still be there in 5 years, instead of competing for a championship...

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:51 PM
Yea you're devaluing those guys a little much, they may go a few slots higher but they don't elevate half of a round.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:52 PM
So you want to sit around and wait every 15 years or so until a Manning or Elway comes along?? Got it.

It's like a kid man, if they can't have exactly what they want they don't want one at all, lets see how far that gets us.

ChiefsCountry
08-26-2008, 08:53 PM
So you want to sit around and wait every 15 years or so until a Manning or Elway comes along?? Got it.

For the most part those are the type of quarterbacks that win the big one, so I guess it would be the right way to do it.

Fish
08-26-2008, 08:53 PM
So you want to sit around and wait every 15 years or so until a Manning or Elway comes along?? Got it.

15 years? Come on...

And you don't have to have a Manning or Elway to be a Superbowl winning team. Believe it or not, your QB doesn't have to be perfect for the offense to work.

DaneMcCloud
08-26-2008, 08:54 PM
Interesting that he limits this to 2nd and 3rd round picks.

Because if he had to include Bulger, Hasselbeck, Romo, Brady, Warner, Garrard, Anderson, etc, his numbers wouldn't look so great.

I've addressed this before: Either take a first round QB or take a 6th round or undrafted free agent.

History shows us that only two second round, two third round, one fourth round, no fifth round, two sixth round and no seventh round QB's have won the Super Bowl.

And if the draft were held again, Joe Montana and Tom Brady would have absolutely been the number one pick overall. Scouts just missed them. Take those guys out of the equation and the choice is clear: Draft first round talent or take three or more years to develop an undrafted free agent.

eazyb81
08-26-2008, 08:54 PM
This isn't news to me. I've said over and over and over again that if we're going to draft a QB, we need to go all out and spend a 1st round pick on one. Otherwise we end up with another Croyle, Pat Barnes, Matt Blundin, etc.

The risk-reward factor with 1st round QBs is ridiculously high - you will most likely get a stud that can make the team a SB contender, or you will end up with a dud that can set the franchise back years. However, the NFL is a QB league now more than ever, so if you want to dream big you have to roll the dice.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:54 PM
For the most part those are the type of quarterbacks that win the big one, so I guess it would be the right way to do it.

And you have to be lucky enough to have the 1st pick that year.....I guess we should just make sure we tank every season for the next 20 years.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:56 PM
This isn't news to me. I've said over and over and over again that if we're going to draft a QB, we need to go all out and spend a 1st round pick on one. Otherwise we end up with another Croyle, Pat Barnes, Matt Blundin, etc.

The risk-reward factor with 1st round QBs is ridiculously high - you will most likely get a stud that can make the team a SB contender, or you will end up with a dud that can set the franchise back years. However, the NFL is a QB league now more than ever, so if you want to dream big you have to roll the dice.

I have respect for teams like the Colts and Bengals because you know what, they used a top 5 pick on a QB that bombed and when put in the same situation again they pulled the trigger again, they didn't get scared they did the right thing.

Deberg_1990
08-26-2008, 08:58 PM
15 years? Come on...

And you don't have to have a Manning or Elway to be a Superbowl winning team. Believe it or not, your QB doesn't have to be perfect for the offense to work.

Yes, your exactly right, and that was sort of my point.

Not every 1st round guy can be a Manning or an Elway, but thats ok. Look at guys like Eli, Rivers, McNair, McNabb, Palmer etc.....

ChiefsCountry
08-26-2008, 08:58 PM
And you have to be lucky enough to have the 1st pick that year.....I guess we should just make sure we tank every season for the next 20 years.

Dude its playing poker. Teams luck into getting a stud. There is no special way to do it.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 08:58 PM
Russells physical talent would make him a high pick most years...I doubt he'd ever fall below 10.

You just told me I overvalue the most important position on the team, thanks I'll take that.

That doesn't mean take him 10 slots over his value...

Oakland would be MUCH better off had they taken Joe Thomas, Calvin Johnson, Adrian Peterson - hell, anyone in the Top 7 would have them in a better position than picking Russell.

Again, it's finding the intersection of where you draft and the value at that position.

Taking JaMarcus Russell at #1? Stupid.

A team taking him at 8-12? Much smarter.

Quinn is a great example. Everyone thought he'd go 1 or 2. He went 23, because the teams at the top were smart enough to know he wasn't worth what a LaRon Landry, Adrian Peterson or Patrick Willis were worth. (just examples)

Too many people are set on the idea that the best QB in the class, no matter how poor the class is, MUST be a Top 10 pick.

That's ridiculous, and it's why teams like the Texans, 49ers, Lions, etc got burned.

JASONSAUTO
08-26-2008, 08:59 PM
And you have to be lucky enough to have the 1st pick that year.....I guess we should just make sure we tank every season for the next 20 years.

montana has some kids coming up right???

Mecca
08-26-2008, 08:59 PM
Yes, your exactly right, and that was sort of my point.

Not every 1st round guy can be a Manning or an Elway, but thats ok. Look at guys like Eli, Rivers, McNabb, Palmer etc.....

That isn't good enough.....we got Brodie Croyle!

What about Roethlisberger he was a 1st rounder also.

ChiefsCountry
08-26-2008, 08:59 PM
I have respect for teams like the Colts and Bengals because you know what, they used a top 5 pick on a QB that bombed and when put in the same situation again they pulled the trigger again, they didn't get scared they did the right thing.

Other than the Colts deciding between Manning and Leaf, it wasnt like either team had a hard decision to make.

Deberg_1990
08-26-2008, 09:00 PM
That doesn't mean take him 10 slots over his value...

Oakland would be MUCH better off had they taken Joe Thomas, Calvin Johnson, Adrian Peterson - hell, anyone in the Top 7 would have them in a better position than picking Russell.

Again, it's finding the intersection of where you draft and the value at that position.

Taking JaMarcus Russell at #1? Stupid.

A team taking him at 8-12? Much smarter.

Quinn is a great example. Everyone thought he'd go 1 or 2. He went 23, because the teams at the top were smart enough to know he wasn't worth what a LaRon Landry, Adrian Peterson or Patrick Willis were worth. (just examples)

Too many people are set on the idea that the best QB in the class, no matter how poor the class is, MUST be a Top 10 pick.

That's ridiculous, and it's why teams like the Texans, 49ers, Lions, etc got burned.

So if the Raiders are in the Super Bowl in 5 years with Russel would it still not be worth it?

ChiefsCountry
08-26-2008, 09:01 PM
Main reason quarterbacks go #1 is the money factor. Its pretty stupid to pay that much cash to any other position.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:01 PM
Other than the Colts deciding between Manning and Leaf, it wasnt like either team had a hard decision to make.

There were questions about Palmer going into his draft....no one ever goes in without any, even Manning didn't.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 09:02 PM
So if the Raiders are in the Super Bowl in 5 years with Russel would it still not be worth it?

ROFL

Raiders.

Russell.

Super Bowl.

Stop it, my stomach...you're killing me...

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:02 PM
So if the Raiders are in the Super Bowl in 5 years with Russel would it still not be worth it?

Don't even bring that up, around these parts Croyle is a better prospect than Russell is, why I dunno.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:02 PM
ROFL

Raiders.

Russell.

Super Bowl.

Stop it, my stomach...you're killing me...

Yea it's almost as funny as thinkin Croyle is the guy right?

Deberg_1990
08-26-2008, 09:02 PM
What about Roethlisberger he was a 1st rounder also.

Yep, absolutely. He certainly will never be Elway, but hes a good, solid, winning QB.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 09:04 PM
There were questions about Palmer going into his draft....no one ever goes in without any, even Manning didn't.

There's questions about EVERY player going into the draft, because these guys are analyzed to death.

There were MANY more questions about Vince Young, Russell and Ryan than there were about Manning and Palmer.

Not even close.

ChiefsCountry
08-26-2008, 09:04 PM
There were questions about Palmer going into his draft....no one ever goes in without any, even Manning didn't.

The next 2 best players on the board were Andre Johnson and Charles Rogers, when the Bengals already had Chad Johnson and TJ. I think it was a pretty clear choice for them. It was Manning vs. Leaf that year, it was QB or bust year.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:05 PM
I would never draft a run first QB or one from the spread option offense, that's why I wouldn't draft Vince Young....the other guys I think are legit prospects.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:06 PM
The next 2 best players on the board were Andre Johnson and Charles Rogers, when the Bengals already had Chad Johnson and TJ. I think it was a pretty clear choice for them. It was Manning vs. Leaf that year, it was QB or bust year.

They considered taking Terence Newman with that pick...

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 09:06 PM
Yea it's almost as funny as thinkin Croyle is the guy right?

Now you're being retarded, not a single person in this thread has said that.

Had we had the 10th pick, and Ryan was there, I might have taken him. 15th? Definitely. If someone overvalued him and took him earlier, so be it.

Not at 5, and certainly not at 3, like ATL did.

jidar
08-26-2008, 09:07 PM
Interesting that he limits this to 2nd and 3rd round picks.

Because if he had to include Bulger, Hasselbeck, Romo, Brady, Warner, Garrard, Anderson, etc, his numbers wouldn't look so great.

Actually no, they would look similar. The later rounds add more successful QBs but they add far far more busts. The other QBs are mostly guys who did nothing and that none of us have ever heard of. I bet that 3% success rate goes down if you looked at every QB ever drafted in every round.



Also, he doesn't bother to mention that a R1 bust literally cripples a franchise financially and developmentally for 3-5 years, where if a mid-late guy flames out, there's no risk absorbed at all.

No it doesn't "literally cripple" a franchise. Every franchise has round 1 busts every few years, it all evens out.

So you have a 20% chance of landing a solid QB (the number is even less for elite), which means you have an 80% chance of your franchise being crippled for half a decade...

Or, you have a 5-10% chance of finding that solid QB in later rounds, with ZERO CHANCE of crippling the franchise if he flames out.


Well we can't ignore the fact that you're completely pulling your 5%-10% number completely out of your ****ing ass, (and I like how later in the thread you switch to using 10% only btw, lol) but let's pretend like you're right about that part even though it's a huge stretch...
What do you mean Zero chance of crippling the franchise? We spend similar amounts of $$$ on the 5th pick in the draft whether he's a QB or not so it's a risk either way.
Or do you think 100% of players taken in the first round who aren't QBs are not busts?

Man you're like a guy who buys lottery tickets bitching at a guy who invests to open his own business. Yeah opening a business is a risk, but at least that guy has a realistic chance of success, all you're doing is spending pocket change and fooling yourself.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 09:07 PM
They considered taking Terence Newman with that pick...

For about 30 seconds...

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:07 PM
Now you're being retarded, not a single person in this thread has said that.

Had we had the 10th pick, and Ryan was there, I might have taken him. 15th? Definitely. If someone overvalued him and took him earlier, so be it.

Not at 5, and certainly not at 3, like ATL did.

I was just being a smartass, but I don't wanna see an ineffective Croyle be the QB for 5 years or other guys just like him.

I'd have taken him at 5...

Deberg_1990
08-26-2008, 09:07 PM
I would never draft a run first QB or one from the spread option offense, that's why I wouldn't draft Vince Young....the other guys I think are legit prospects.


I still like Vince Young alot. Hes a winner. He sort of reminds me of a young Elway. I look for him to bounce back this year.


Call me crazy...

Fish
08-26-2008, 09:08 PM
Great analysis I found...

(...)

Here are the primary QBs for this year's NFL teams with winning records and where they were drafted.

Giants - Eli Manning (First Round)
Redskins - Jason Campbell (First Round)
Bills - JP Losman (First Round)
Steelers - Ben Roethlisberger (First Round)
Colts - Peyton Manning (First Round)
Titans - Vince Young (First Round)
San Diego - Philip Rivers (First Round)
Packers - Brett Favre (Second Round)
Jacksonville - David Garrard (Fourth Round)/Quinn Gray (undrafted)
Seahawks - Matt Hasselbeck (Sixth Round)
Patriots - Tom Brady (Sixth Round)
Browns - Derek Anderson (Sixth Round)
Cowboys - Tony Romo (undrafted)
Lions - Jon Kitna (undrafted)
Bucs - Jeff Garcia (undrafted)

So if you add in Quinn Gray, then we have as many Sixth Round and Undrafted QBs leading winning teams as we do First Round QBs.

But wins alone aren't the best example of whether a QB is competent or not - I'm looking at you Vince Young. A passer rating gets us closer to that. So let's find the average passer rating by draft round for the primary QBs in this year's NFL. We're using career passer ratings (not just this year's) provided by NFL.com and have added Byron Leftwich, Jake Delhomme, David Carr and Vinny Testaverde to the list. Special note: Trent Green was drafted in the 8th round of the 1993 Draft. This means in total we're looking at 34 QBs.

First Round QBs: 17
Avg. passer rating: 80.05

Second Round QBs: 2
Avg. passer rating: 86.35

Third Round QBs: 2
Avg. passer rating: 81.05

Fourth Round QBs: 1
Avg. passer rating: 84.1

Fifth Round QBs: none

Sixth Round QBs: 4
Avg. passer rating: 87.48

Seventh Round QBs: none

Eighth Round QBs: 1
Avg. passer rating: 86.9

Undrafted QBs: 7
Avg. passer rating: 85.07

You don't need a linear regression analysis program to tell you that there is no correlation between career passer rating and draft round. But there are some important things to consider. One is that first round draft choices get more playing time to determine if they'll pan out while late round draft choices have to produce immediately. We all know about the Ryan Leafs and Akili Smiths. Meanwhile a bad Sixth Round pick may play one game and that's basically his career. Or he may never play at all. These scenarios will naturally deflate the first round QB avg. passer rating to a degree while boosting the late rounds. But, looking at it from another perspective, you can also make the argument with the data available that there are a fair number of pretty good QBs that go late in the draft or that don't get drafted at all. By this analysis, there are 12 current QBs who were drafted in the Sixth Round or later (or not at all) who easily surpass the 17 First Round players in average career passer rating. When you stop and think about that, it's stunning. And it also says that maybe some of those First Round picks really shouldn't be playing anymore and teams should be trying out new guys - like say my 49ers. One can only wonder how many Tom Bradys and Tony Romos weren't discovered because a higher draft pick, but inferior player, was ahead of them on the depth chart.

The most recent example is Derek Anderson. Romeo Crennel named Charlie Frye (a third round choice) as his starter at the beginning of the year, then traded him after Week 1. It's only because of that trade that Anderson saw significant playing time. Imagine if Crennel had stuck with Frye until week 8 or 9. He might have just inserted Brady Quinn by then, effectively shutting the door on Anderson's career. Instead, the trade was made, Anderson began starting, and another late round gem was found.

Year after year scouts and coaches drool over players with great arm strength (see: Boller, Kyle), or family genes (see: Manning, Eli) or God only knows what (see: Smith, Alex). And after they fail - although Eli appears to maybe finally be headed in the right direction - you hear excuse after excuse. He's an idiot; he didn't play in a pro-style college offense; he's slow; he doesn't get rid of the ball quickly enough. Well, if all that's so noticeable now, why didn't you notice it before? And why didn't you notice Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Derek Anderson, and Kurt Warner? Obviously something isn't working in terms of scouting.

Certainly more analysis needs to be done - as in looking back year after year - but there does seem to be a bit of a trend. And that is that there are a ton of first round QB busts along with a surprisingly high number of good QBs available late in the draft or who were never drafted at all. Which pretty much means one thing. The draft is frequently a total crapshoot when it comes to drafting QBs.

http://100percentinjuryrate.blogspot.com/2007/11/drafting-nfl-quarterbacks-is-total.html

phillip
08-26-2008, 09:20 PM
Why are you guys saying its crippling to miss in the first round on a QB? Why would it be more crippling than missing on a DT like Simms?

Or are you just saying it's more likely to miss on a QB, but equally crippling?

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:22 PM
Why are you guys saying its crippling to miss in the first round on a QB? Why would it be more crippling than missing on a DT like Simms?

Or are you just saying it's more likely to miss on a QB, but equally crippling?

It's perception, if you miss on a top 5 pick it's bad no matter the position but the QB busts are alot more talked about and magnified than others, every single position has them though.

I don't like the word crippling being used because when you pick #1 overall you're already crippled.

Fish
08-26-2008, 09:23 PM
Why are you guys saying its crippling to miss in the first round on a QB? Why would it be more crippling than missing on a DT like Simms?

Or are you just saying it's more likely to miss on a QB, but equally crippling?

Because....

Matt Ryan was drafted third overall by the Atlanta Falcons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Falcons) in the 2008 NFL Draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NFL_Draft). He was second first-round pick of the year to sign when he agreed to a six-year contract on May 20. The contract had an overall value of $72 million and contained $34.75 million in guaranteed money.<sup id="cite_ref-Falcons_ink_QB_Ryan_to_6-year_deal_6-0" class="reference">[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ryan_%28American_football%29#cite_note-Falcons_ink_QB_Ryan_to_6-year_deal-6)</sup> The contract made Ryan the 4th highest paid player in the NFL behind Peyton Manning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Manning), Ben Roethlisberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roethlisberger), and Carson Palmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_Palmer) <sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ryan_%28American_football%29#cite_note-7)</sup> despite never having played a professional game.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 09:23 PM
Actually no, they would look similar. The later rounds add more successful QBs but they add far far more busts. The other QBs are mostly guys who did nothing and that none of us have ever heard of. I bet that 3% success rate goes down if you looked at every QB ever drafted in every round.

You might be the only person I've ever heard consider a late round pick not working out as a bust...



No it doesn't "literally cripple" a franchise. Every franchise has round 1 busts every few years, it all evens out.

There was about a $25M difference in guaranteed money between the top of R1, and the bottom of R1. Considering we're talking about the Chiefs, it;s fair to assume a Top 5 pick. Losing that kind of money, and the years of development lost ARE crippling -and doesn't "even out"


Well we can't ignore the fact that you're completely pulling your 5%-10% number completely out of your ****ing ass, (and I like how later in the thread you switch to using 10% only btw, lol) but let's pretend like you're right about that part even though it's a huge stretch...
What do you mean Zero chance of crippling the franchise? We spend similar amounts of $$$ on the 5th pick in the draft whether he's a QB or not so it's a risk either way.
Or do you think 100% of players taken in the first round who aren't QBs are not busts?

That number is actually pretty generous, considering a third of all starters in the league were taken outside the 1st round.

Man you're like a guy who buys lottery tickets bitching at a guy who invests to open his own business. Yeah opening a business is a risk, but at least that guy has a realistic chance of success, all you're doing is spending pocket change and fooling yourself.

If you think a 20% chance of success is realistic, you probably shouldn't open your own business...

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:24 PM
Because....

Matt Ryan was drafted third overall by the Atlanta Falcons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Falcons) in the 2008 NFL Draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NFL_Draft). He was second first-round pick of the year to sign when he agreed to a six-year contract on May 20. The contract had an overall value of $72 million and contained $34.75 million in guaranteed money.<sup id="cite_ref-Falcons_ink_QB_Ryan_to_6-year_deal_6-0" class="reference">[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ryan_%28American_football%29#cite_note-Falcons_ink_QB_Ryan_to_6-year_deal-6)</sup> The contract made Ryan the 4th highest paid player in the NFL behind Peyton Manning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Manning), Ben Roethlisberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roethlisberger), and Carson Palmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_Palmer) <sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ryan_%28American_football%29#cite_note-7)</sup> despite never having played a professional game.

Vernon Davis is the highest paid TE in the league after being the 6th pick, it just comes with someone being drafted really high....

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2008, 09:29 PM
Great analysis I found...

(...)

Here are the primary QBs for this year's NFL teams with winning records and where they were drafted.

Giants - Eli Manning (First Round)
Redskins - Jason Campbell (First Round)
Bills - JP Losman (First Round)
Steelers - Ben Roethlisberger (First Round)
Colts - Peyton Manning (First Round)
Titans - Vince Young (First Round)
San Diego - Philip Rivers (First Round)
Packers - Brett Favre (Second Round)
Jacksonville - David Garrard (Fourth Round)/Quinn Gray (undrafted)
Seahawks - Matt Hasselbeck (Sixth Round)
Patriots - Tom Brady (Sixth Round)
Browns - Derek Anderson (Sixth Round)
Cowboys - Tony Romo (undrafted)
Lions - Jon Kitna (undrafted)
Bucs - Jeff Garcia (undrafted)

So if you add in Quinn Gray, then we have as many Sixth Round and Undrafted QBs leading winning teams as we do First Round QBs.

But wins alone aren't the best example of whether a QB is competent or not - I'm looking at you Vince Young. A passer rating gets us closer to that. So let's find the average passer rating by draft round for the primary QBs in this year's NFL. We're using career passer ratings (not just this year's) provided by NFL.com and have added Byron Leftwich, Jake Delhomme, David Carr and Vinny Testaverde to the list. Special note: Trent Green was drafted in the 8th round of the 1993 Draft. This means in total we're looking at 34 QBs.

First Round QBs: 17
Avg. passer rating: 80.05

Second Round QBs: 2
Avg. passer rating: 86.35

Third Round QBs: 2
Avg. passer rating: 81.05

Fourth Round QBs: 1
Avg. passer rating: 84.1

Fifth Round QBs: none

Sixth Round QBs: 4
Avg. passer rating: 87.48

Seventh Round QBs: none

Eighth Round QBs: 1
Avg. passer rating: 86.9

Undrafted QBs: 7
Avg. passer rating: 85.07

You don't need a linear regression analysis program to tell you that there is no correlation between career passer rating and draft round. But there are some important things to consider. One is that first round draft choices get more playing time to determine if they'll pan out while late round draft choices have to produce immediately. We all know about the Ryan Leafs and Akili Smiths. Meanwhile a bad Sixth Round pick may play one game and that's basically his career. Or he may never play at all. These scenarios will naturally deflate the first round QB avg. passer rating to a degree while boosting the late rounds. But, looking at it from another perspective, you can also make the argument with the data available that there are a fair number of pretty good QBs that go late in the draft or that don't get drafted at all. By this analysis, there are 12 current QBs who were drafted in the Sixth Round or later (or not at all) who easily surpass the 17 First Round players in average career passer rating. When you stop and think about that, it's stunning. And it also says that maybe some of those First Round picks really shouldn't be playing anymore and teams should be trying out new guys - like say my 49ers. One can only wonder how many Tom Bradys and Tony Romos weren't discovered because a higher draft pick, but inferior player, was ahead of them on the depth chart.

The most recent example is Derek Anderson. Romeo Crennel named Charlie Frye (a third round choice) as his starter at the beginning of the year, then traded him after Week 1. It's only because of that trade that Anderson saw significant playing time. Imagine if Crennel had stuck with Frye until week 8 or 9. He might have just inserted Brady Quinn by then, effectively shutting the door on Anderson's career. Instead, the trade was made, Anderson began starting, and another late round gem was found.

Year after year scouts and coaches drool over players with great arm strength (see: Boller, Kyle), or family genes (see: Manning, Eli) or God only knows what (see: Smith, Alex). And after they fail - although Eli appears to maybe finally be headed in the right direction - you hear excuse after excuse. He's an idiot; he didn't play in a pro-style college offense; he's slow; he doesn't get rid of the ball quickly enough. Well, if all that's so noticeable now, why didn't you notice it before? And why didn't you notice Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Derek Anderson, and Kurt Warner? Obviously something isn't working in terms of scouting.

Certainly more analysis needs to be done - as in looking back year after year - but there does seem to be a bit of a trend. And that is that there are a ton of first round QB busts along with a surprisingly high number of good QBs available late in the draft or who were never drafted at all. Which pretty much means one thing. The draft is frequently a total crapshoot when it comes to drafting QBs.

http://100percentinjuryrate.blogspot.com/2007/11/drafting-nfl-quarterbacks-is-total.html



R.
E.
P.

phillip
08-26-2008, 09:32 PM
Because....

Matt Ryan was drafted third overall by the Atlanta Falcons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Falcons) in the 2008 NFL Draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_NFL_Draft). He was second first-round pick of the year to sign when he agreed to a six-year contract on May 20. The contract had an overall value of $72 million and contained $34.75 million in guaranteed money.<sup id="cite_ref-Falcons_ink_QB_Ryan_to_6-year_deal_6-0" class="reference">[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ryan_%28American_football%29#cite_note-Falcons_ink_QB_Ryan_to_6-year_deal-6)</sup> The contract made Ryan the 4th highest paid player in the NFL behind Peyton Manning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyton_Manning), Ben Roethlisberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roethlisberger), and Carson Palmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_Palmer) <sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ryan_%28American_football%29#cite_note-7)</sup> despite never having played a professional game.

I thought the way its been working out, third pick compensation would be comparable regardless of position (i.e. something in between what the second and fourth picks were paid).

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:34 PM
I thought the way its been working out, third pick compensation would be comparable regardless of position (i.e. something in between what the second and fourth picks were paid).

Matt Ryan does make more money than the other picks in the top 5 but it's not considerably different. If any of those guys bust they will have "crippled their teams" regardless of their position.

ChiefsCountry
08-26-2008, 09:35 PM
Vernon Davis is the highest paid TE in the league after being the 6th pick, it just comes with someone being drafted really high....

Difference between highest paid TE and 4th highest in the whole NFL.

RibKing67
08-26-2008, 09:37 PM
Vernon Davis is the highest paid TE in the league after being the 6th pick, it just comes with someone being drafted really high....

And he at least to this point is ........... a bust.

On a side note I would LOVE to see the NFL do wha the NBA is doing with rookie salares. There is NO way an unproven draft pick should pull that kind of jack.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:38 PM
And he at least to this point is ........... a bust.

On a side note I would LOVE to see the NFL do wha the NBA is doing with rookie salares. There is NO way an unproven draft pick should pull that kind of jack.

Like that other thread said, then where's that money go? Plenty of vets make a ton of money yet there are numerous teams so far under the cap they're under the salary floor...like the Chiefs..

That's part of the reason the union doesn't go for it, they think it's the owners wanting to pocket more money.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:39 PM
Difference between highest paid TE and 4th highest in the whole NFL.

Value of position.

Fish
08-26-2008, 09:39 PM
Vernon Davis is the highest paid TE in the league after being the 6th pick, it just comes with someone being drafted really high....

Uhh huh.... 4th highest salary in the entire NFL without playing a single down....

Let me respond with some quotes from your own article...

Some might say the best course of action is to wait until the mid or late rounds to select a passer and one could cite plenty of examples to support that theory since almost a dozen of the league’s current starting quarterbacks were chosen beyond the third round, or in some cases not even drafted at all.

Sure for every Peyton Manning or Carson Palmer there are probably three or four Ryan Leaf’s, Tim Couch’s or David Carr’s but wouldn’t you rather at least roll the dice on the 20% chance that you’ll get an elite, franchise signal caller you can build a team around

The bottom line is that it’s a crapshoot to take a quarterback in the first round

Sure you might waste a high draft pick and a ton of money on the next Akili Smith but at least the potential for finding the next Donovan McNabb is there as well.

There are no sure things when it comes to the NFL Draft and that is especially true when it comes to first round quarterbacks, at least until the next generation of Manning’s come along.

If you can't see how making a rookie the 4th highest paid player in the NFL on a 20% chance of success isn't something that could set a franchise back, then I don't know what to say.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 09:41 PM
All rookies are a crap shoot....ALL OF THEM, it's not just QB's. But there are certain positions I'd much rather take high than low....

Want examples? I think QB, DE are first round positions where I'd never take a RB in the first round..positional value I doubt I'd ever take a TE in the first round either, unless it was the very end.

phillip
08-26-2008, 09:42 PM
So KCFish, you're argument is that because a top 5 QB commands so much money, you're better off drafting a DT or LB so that if they bust you're not out as much?

What about the fact that we're so far under the cap anyway?

Fish
08-26-2008, 09:50 PM
So KCFish, you're argument is that because a top 5 QB commands so much money, you're better off drafting a DT or LB so that if they bust you're not out as much?

What about the fact that we're so far under the cap anyway?

You're better off drafting BPA.

Our cap doesn't have much to do with it.

Nightfyre
08-26-2008, 10:11 PM
You're better off drafting BPA.

Our cap doesn't have much to do with it.

/AGREE
I am with OTWP on this one: You don't take a QB in the first round in a year when the QB crop is shitty. Patience will eventually get that signal caller, but you consistently suffer overall when you whiff consistently shooting for need instead of BPA. Until then, veteran stopgaps can fill the void while you build a strong team through the draft.

jidar
08-26-2008, 10:23 PM
You might be the only person I've ever heard consider a late round pick not working out as a bust...


Which is completely beside the point. For the purposes of this conversation we're talking about finding a franchise QB, call the failures whatever you want. Bust, failures, non-franchise. Try to stay on topic here mcfly.




There was about a $25M difference in guaranteed money between the top of R1, and the bottom of R1. Considering we're talking about the Chiefs, it;s fair to assume a Top 5 pick. Losing that kind of money, and the years of development lost ARE crippling -and doesn't "even out"

You know what, this explains your thinking. You actually think QBs are always paid much much more than other positions in the draft. Newflash guy, they aren't. 1st Round rookies get contracts paid for where they are drafting regardless of the position they play. Jamarcus Russell managed to get a bit more than his slot was supposed to be worth, but he had to hold out for a year to do it.
For comparison here are the last 3 #1 picks overall:

2008: OT Jake Long $58m over 6yrs $30m Guaranteed
2007: QB Jamarcus Russell $61m over 7yrs (less than Long) $32m guaranteed (held out a year)
2006: DE Mario Williams $54m over 6yrs $26m guaranteed

See there is no huge premium for taking a QB, sometimes a player who is more of a sure thing warrants a bit more than his slot, but more often than not you pay for where you pick, not the on-field position of the player being picked.




That number is actually pretty generous, considering a third of all starters in the league were taken outside the 1st round.


You're comparing 1 round to the entire rest of the draft plus FA. Sure you might hit one of those other players later, but the sea of players you're pulling from is so so much bigger that your chances are far less. Look if I put 20 fish in a barrel and tell you I'll give you $20 to shoot one, are you going to tell me you'd rather shoot into the ocean because there are more fish to hit there? Don't be stupid.



If you think a 20% chance of success is realistic, you probably shouldn't open your own business...

Actually it's 15%. 85% of new businesses fail within 5 years. This is a commonly known statistic, go back to college.

jidar
08-26-2008, 10:24 PM
/AGREE
I am with OTWP on this one: You don't take a QB in the first round in a year when the QB crop is shitty. Patience will eventually get that signal caller, but you consistently suffer overall when you whiff consistently shooting for need instead of BPA. Until then, veteran stopgaps can fill the void while you build a strong team through the draft.

I don't think anyone is saying "Take a QB round 1 at all costs"

Actually we're doing the opposite, we're arguing with the people who say don't take a QB rnd 1 no matter how good they are.

Nightfyre
08-26-2008, 10:29 PM
I don't think anyone is saying "Take a QB round 1 at all costs"

Actually we're doing the opposite, we're arguing with the people who say don't take a QB rnd 1 no matter how good they are.

Who says that? OTWP has explicitly stated exactly as I did above. There is nothing wrong with taking a stab at a low round QB, either. In fact, if I were running a franchise, I'd go after a mid to late round QB once every 2-3 years, just for depth.

jidar
08-26-2008, 10:29 PM
So KCFish, you're argument is that because a top 5 QB commands so much money, you're better off drafting a DT or LB so that if they bust you're not out as much?

What about the fact that we're so far under the cap anyway?

That's just not true because the draft doesn't work that way. You pay just as much for the other guys... and really even if your DT is all-pro he doesn't impact your team as much as a franchise QB would so the payoff is smaller.

jidar
08-26-2008, 10:30 PM
Who says that? OTWP has explicitly stated exactly as I did above. There is nothing wrong with taking a stab at a low round QB, either. In fact, if I were running a franchise, I'd go after a mid to late round QB once every 2-3 years, just for depth.

now we're all just arguing despite the fact that we all have the same opinion. Take the BPA

TrickyNicky
08-26-2008, 10:34 PM
So, I was researching where the last 20 or so superbowl winners were drafted, and so I looked up Steve Young on Wiki. This is hilarious:

"USFL

Young signed a record 10-year, $40 million contract with the Los Angeles Express of the now-defunct United States Football League in 1984. He agreed to take his payment in the form of an annuity to help the fledgling team; he would receive $1 million every year for 40 years. It was with the Express that Young came into contact with coach Russ A. Molzahn. At the time, it was another huge signing by the fledgling league, who had also succeeded in signing the current Heisman Trophy winner, running back Mike Rozier of the University of Nebraska as well as the previous winner, University of Georgia's running back Herschel Walker. Despite being surrounded with some talent, such as future NFL'ers Jojo Townsell, Mel Gray and Kevin Nelson, and making the playoffs in Young's first season, the Express never was able to create a sustaining fan base in Los Angeles. Young missed the first six games of his rookie season because he took some college classes so he could graduate on time. However, he started the final 12 games and had a decent year. His most notable accomplishment was becoming the first pro football player ever to pass for 300 yards and rush for another 100 in a single game.

In Young's second and final season with the USFL's Express, between their owner going bankrupt and playing in front of 5,000 to 8,000 spectators, things got so desperate that in one game late in the season, decimated by injuries at running back, Young was forced to play the game at running back while his backup took the snaps.

The league ceased operations in 1986 after losing most of its claims in an antitrust suit against the NFL. Young was still being paid his annuity as of 2008."

He's still getting 1 million a year until 2024. Awesome.

cdcox
08-26-2008, 11:12 PM
Summary: if you need a QB, you're f'd.

SBK
08-26-2008, 11:54 PM
The QB crop doesn't matter, you're only drafting 1, not 4 or 5.

And if you're picking in the top 3-5 you need a QB, period. Teams with great QB's don't pick that high.

SNR
08-27-2008, 12:25 AM
What's the bullshit I kept hearing about this ENTIRE draft year? You take the best player available no matter what the position because our team sucks and ALL areas are position of need. Now what do I hear? You should take a subpar 1st round QB prospect over the best prospects in YEARS at other positions (Chris Long, Glenn Dorsey...)

Okay Mecca. Chiefs have the #1 overall pick next year. Let's say Crabtree has a Calvin Johnson-like season and Stafford has a Matt Ryan-like season. Who do you take? A freakish prospect once-in-ten-years kind of guy or just simply the best QB but maybe not that great?

From what I'm reading on your posts, you're saying we should take the QB. And that completely goes against all of what I've been hearing about Zen in the Art of Drafting For a Shitty Team this past spring.

Mecca
08-27-2008, 12:28 AM
They have to take a QB if they are number one....they can not in any way shape or form run Croyle back out there, with the #1 pick he'll have answered the questions that he isn't the guy...

I think WR's are valuable but if he has no one to get him the ball he's useless. Look if Atlanta had taken Dorsey and Ryan had made it to 5, I'd have told you the Chiefs should have taken him.

SNR
08-27-2008, 12:37 AM
They have to take a QB if they are number one....they can not in any way shape or form run Croyle back out there, with the #1 pick he'll have answered the questions that he isn't the guy...

I think WR's are valuable but if he has no one to get him the ball he's useless. Look if Atlanta had taken Dorsey and Ryan had made it to 5, I'd have told you the Chiefs should have taken him.I would have too, but not until Dorsey, McFadden, and Chris Long were off the board.

Bottom of the barrel teams need TALENT and playmakers. A Matt Ryan might be a good QB, but at #1 overall?

What's wrong with going through a veteran? There's tons to be had every year, and a lot of them aren't even total shit. Wait until the best QB prospect comes out. Odds are the rookie QB isn't going to set your team on fire and make things instantly better anyway. Why not wait until even the next draft if you had a freak prospect at another position?

Mecca
08-27-2008, 12:39 AM
Taking a RB top 5=really bad idea.

Where are yuo going to get this vet? QB's are of a premium if one is available odds are he isn't all that good.

SNR
08-27-2008, 12:52 AM
Taking a RB top 5=really bad idea.

Where are yuo going to get this vet? QB's are of a premium if one is available odds are he isn't all that good.There's one every year. A Brian Griese, a Jeff Garcia, a Kurt Warner, a Chad Pennington. There's always one around.

And again, it works both ways. Your elite Calvin Johnson WR can't catch the ball that's not properly thrown to him and your elite Carson Palmer QB can't complete passes if his targets can't get open and catch shit. I'm saying it's easier to find a subpar QB (you can find one in EVERY draft in the first round) with a fantastic WR than it is to try to make things work with your just okay offense you drafted to complement your #1 overall not-worth-#1-overall QB.

And you know what? Croyle might just play balls-off fantastic this year. Let's not bitch and argue about how our draft turned out, please. The Falcons drafted Matt Ryan, so we weren't getting our magic first round savior QB this year anyway. Croyle makes the most sense to start this year (because who knows, he MIGHT be good) so let's just see what he can do.

SBK
08-27-2008, 12:57 AM
There's one every year. A Brian Griese, a Jeff Garcia, a Kurt Warner, a Chad Pennington. There's always one around.

And again, it works both ways. Your elite Calvin Johnson WR can't catch the ball that's not properly thrown to him and your elite Carson Palmer QB can't complete passes if his targets can't get open and catch shit. I'm saying it's easier to find a subpar QB (you can find one in EVERY draft in the first round) with a fantastic WR than it is to try to make things work with your just okay offense you drafted to complement your #1 overall not-worth-#1-overall QB.

And you know what? Croyle might just play balls-off fantastic this year. Let's not bitch and argue about how our draft turned out, please. The Falcons drafted Matt Ryan, so we weren't getting our magic first round savior QB this year anyway. Croyle makes the most sense to start this year (because who knows, he MIGHT be good) so let's just see what he can do.

If Croyle is good this argument doesn't matter, because we won't be picking #1.

SNR
08-27-2008, 01:03 AM
If Croyle is good this argument doesn't matter, because we won't be picking #1.Okay. So what if he's good and we just have a line that can't protect him (like Bulger in St. Louis) and a defense that can't stop anybody (looking at our linebackers, that's a likely scenario). What if we draft in the top 10 (another likely scenario) and we get to this juncture?

If the QB is the best prospect on the board, then take the damn QB. What I'm sick of hearing about in this thread is the argument that we need to take a risk on a player that's not the best player in the draft at #1. Bullshit.

Deberg_1990
08-27-2008, 06:55 AM
I'm saying it's easier to find a subpar QB (you can find one in EVERY draft in the first round) with a fantastic WR

Why do you want to be satisfied with a subpar or average QB?? Then your the 90's Chiefs.

Man, im really starting to see why this franchise is where it is...

Coogs
08-27-2008, 07:51 AM
They have to take a QB if they are number one....they can not in any way shape or form run Croyle back out there, with the #1 pick he'll have answered the questions that he isn't the guy...

I think WR's are valuable but if he has no one to get him the ball he's useless. Look if Atlanta had taken Dorsey and Ryan had made it to 5, I'd have told you the Chiefs should have taken him.

I'd have to agree totally with this one. That said, if this turns out to be the scenario we are faced with next April, I sure hope someone like Stafford really shows the goods this fall.

Dave Lane
08-27-2008, 08:29 AM
Sometimes you just have to say f*ck it and dare to be great no matter the risk.

If you always play it safe with little upside, well....you end up like the Chiefs.

Exactly and rep!

Dave

Dave Lane
08-27-2008, 08:32 AM
Glenn Dorsey was considered the Peyton Manning of DT's. Not exactly a good comparison.

I'm not scared at all to take a QB in R1, but it's not going to be a run-of-the-mill guy like Ryan or Stafford, just because they're the best guy in a pathetic class of QB's.

Especially when there's only a 10% less chance my late round guy doesn't work out.

Again:

An 80% chance of failure, while crippling the franchise?

Or a 85-90% chance of failure, with ZERO risk?

Look around the league, it;s not like I'm the only one that feels this way...

So you're saying a 1st round bust (really of any type then) = 5 years of crippling the franchise? God then the Chiefs still have 500 yrs to work off before they can be great! Thats whats wong!!

Dave

phillip
08-27-2008, 09:36 AM
What's the bullshit I kept hearing about this ENTIRE draft year? You take the best player available no matter what the position because our team sucks and ALL areas are position of need.

My problem with BPA no matter what is that, statistically, you'd only be drafting a QB once every 20+ years on average.

I agree with Mecca on this one. Nobody's trading a Brady or Manning. If we're drafting top 5 again and Croyle isn't looking good, it's time to pull the trigger on a QB.

OnTheWarpath58
08-27-2008, 10:12 AM
Summary: if you need a QB, you're f'd.

That pretty much sums it up.

OnTheWarpath58
08-27-2008, 10:15 AM
My problem with BPA no matter what is that, statistically, you'd only be drafting a QB once every 20+ years on average.

I agree with Mecca on this one. Nobody's trading a Brady or Manning. If we're drafting top 5 again and Croyle isn't looking good, it's time to pull the trigger on a QB.

So say we have the 2nd overall pick, and the highest rated QB falls somewhere in the middle of the 1st round.

You'd pass up 10-12 BETTER PLAYERS, just to take the QB?

How can people who are supposedly fans of this franchise - who have witnessed 1st hand what drafting for need does to you long term - still advocate doing so?

Rausch
08-27-2008, 10:18 AM
My problem with BPA no matter what is that, statistically, you'd only be drafting a QB once every 20+ years on average.

I agree with Mecca on this one. Nobody's trading a Brady or Manning. If we're drafting top 5 again and Croyle isn't looking good, it's time to pull the trigger on a QB.

Our TEAM sucks.

I'd say it's time to build one of those...

OnTheWarpath58
08-27-2008, 10:20 AM
Our TEAM sucks.

I'd say it's time to build one of those...

People keep forgetting that it's a TEAM game.

The odds of the BPA come next April filling a position of need for this team are pretty damn good - especially knowing the guys coming out on the OL/DL.

beach tribe
08-27-2008, 10:26 AM
I totally agree with this, but don't think you should take a QB who has been thrust into the first because there just isn't any other QBs available. Ala Matt Ryan. This coming year is another where a guy like Matt Stafford is going to go high in the draft because he's the best of a shitty class. I still think you take the BPA.

You might have to wait another year for a QB, but I also think that if there's a QB in the 1st that you want, and think is the guy, but your pick isn't high enough, you do WHATEVER it takes to move up, and get him.

SNR
08-27-2008, 10:49 AM
Why do you want to be satisfied with a subpar or average QB?? Then your the 90's Chiefs.

Man, im really starting to see why this franchise is where it is...I never said that. I won't be satisfied with a subpar QB in the early first round. I want the best QB on the board. And I hope he's good enough to warrant his draft position. It's that simple.

If you spend your #1 overall pick on a QB when you could've had an absolute stud at another position and the QB is a bust (which is an 80% chance I guess) then that wasn't very smart, was it? And don't talk to me about taking risks and that bullshit. There are times when risks are the SMART decision. Therefore, make the smart decision every time.

The Chiefs aren't just scared. They're also STUPID. There's a clear difference.